Wednesday, September 4, 2013

Consistency vs. Hypocrisy

You know what's funny?

With the media crowing that the GOP is "on board" with strikes on Syria, there's a little something that's lost. Namely, the fact that the right-leaning politicians are being consistent - they understood the necessity of US force to prevent out-of-control agents in the middle east from attacking their own citizens back in 2003 - heck, back in 1991 for that matter. Unlike their counterparts on the left side, their support does not change based on the political affiliation of the President.

Nancy Pelosi, who voted against US involvement in Kuwait in 1991, is on the record as supporting action against Syria. Can anyone explain this? Saddam Hussein, fresh from using chemical weapons against Iran, invaded Kuwait, a US ally. This was not sufficient to draw the support of Pelosi, yet she's willing to side with terrorists in Syria over allegations of chemical warfare? And, of course, there's the spectacle of Secretary of State Lurch - who was against the war in Iraq before he voted for it - running around trying to drum up support for action in Syria.

Of course, there are former hawks that are jumping up and down swearing that we have no business intervening in Syria. Some, most certainly, are opposing action simply because Barack Obama is a Democrat; others are opposing on the basis that Syria isn't posing a threat to the US. Most, though, recognize that a government that readily uses chemical weapons against its own people is one that we need to be keeping an eye on - and, if necessary, send a strong message.

The problem, of course, is that the message has to be genuine and readily backed up by more action if needed. It's hard to tell if this radical change of heart from Barack Obama - who, remember, campaigned against John McCain on the basis of having voted for the war in Iraq - will last long enough to see action in Syria through. If this is an action borne out of solid intel that shows a quick, decisive show of force would be sufficient to change the tide, then have it.

Otherwise, heed the words of yourselves more than ten years prior when that drooling idiot cowboy Bush was planning action in Iraq...

That is all.

2 comments:

Geodkyt said...

My opposition to intervention in Syria is based on a few factors:

1. Not sure they've made the case that it was Assad who used the weapons -- they've made a pretty good one, but it is still highly possible it was a munitions handling error on the part of rebels with captured government ordnance. Still, if everything else was a "GO" for me, I'd give the Administration the benefit of the doubt here -- we KNOW Assad has teh weapons, and we're pretty sure they have Iraqi return addresses.

2. Likelyhood that even "successful" intervention would be a net benefit to the US, over letting the barbarians keep killing one another.

3. #2 is compounded by the fact that I cannot trust this president to use enough force, quickly enough, to get the job done without massive loss of US life.

Note that none of these three objections applied to the Iraqi intervention. Under the 1990 AUMF, the ceasefire agreement that paused the 1991 war, and thousands of years of tradition (accepted both in the Western world AND the Middle East), we were good to go on going for unconditional surrender in Iraq the very first time he illuminated a UN or NATO jet, or refused to "bend and spread" for inspection teams.

Note that those wholly acceptable causus belli justifying the 2003 Iraq invasion are in addition to the also wholly acceptible causus belli provided by the additional UN resolutions, a 1998 US law stating regime change in Iraq was official US policy, and the later AUMF.

Formynder said...

The main problem I have intervening in this situation is that the rebels are closely associated with Al Qaeda. There is no good side to back in this fight. Of course, I don't necessarily think that gassing 1,400 people is orders of magnitude worse than killing over 100,000 in conventional means.

The only good case I've seen for going to war here is to fill the leadership vacuum and preventing someone like Russia or Iran from gaining more regional prominence.